This analogy is weak for a few reasons, first off companies are not doctors and with diversification no one is at risk of death. Secondly, expanding the pool o

This analogy is weak for a few reasons, first off companies are not doctors and with diversification no one is at risk of death. Secondly, expanding the pool of available investments with an eye towards attempting to correct systematic injustice doesn’t need to accompany a loss of quality, which is what is argued here. If the pool of quality candidates is large, then having a diversity goal in an investment fund doesn’t necessarily lead to lower quality. After all, can you honestly say that all the worthy startups and teams are getting investment now? As a side note, if the diversity argument lowering quality is “correct”, then why wouldn’t any investment hypothesis also lead to lower quality? There are tons of vc firms that only invest in certain types of companies. They still manage to keep quality high while being discerning about who they invest in. Think funds that only do bio or only do social media. Instead of coming up with reasons why status quo is totally fine or why giving money to black entrepreneurs is going to cause losses, perhaps we could imagine a world where such investment thesis are successful, and expand the total success of everyone?